The Men's Rights subreddit is a place for those who wish to discuss men's rights and the ways said rights are infringed upon.

No advice animals, rage comics, or other low-effort image posts. Mods may remove these at their discretion.

No posts about bannings by other moderators (too common, not relevant to topic of "rights")

No linking to SRS or affiliated subs, or Gawker Media websites.

Spam/Off-Topic posts will be removed. Use self-posts for related topics, justifying their relation.

Facebook posts must be done w/ screenshot & blanked names.

Absolutely no doxxing will be tolerated.

Advocating for violence/illegal acts may be removed.

Links to other subreddits must use NP format ("np" in place of "www").

Young accounts are given no tolerance.

/r/MensRights strongly supports principles of free speech. People posting here are sharing their opinions. Opinions will not be removed, but actions may (see above rules). Please do not hesitate to send us a modmail if a user is violating the rules.

Interesting Discussions:

These threads include significant research/collection by the authors and warrant consideration. Please feel free to join in on the discussions.

And what makes it all the worse is that the BBC tries to pin blame on the father - who has been in court giving evidence in this case that he tried to save the boy and to contact the welfare services about him, and was told it was a private matter and therefore none of his business. he didn't even live in the same house.

This man's son died clutching his teddy, starving and filthy, while his father tried to raise the alarm and was ignored. I think this is possibly the worst thing I have ever heard.

The BBC version of the story omits all of the details which make it clear that he was in no way responsible, including the fact that he was presenting evidence against his ex wife, and instead includes a totally irrelevant claim that he was violent towards her in an effort to portray him as dangerous and unreasonable and her as a victim.

Including this claim adds no useful information to our understanding of the crime and only
serves to smear the husband and to try to cast the killer in a positive light as a victim. It's a disgrace and I shouldn't even have to explain that to you.

You do have to explain this because we are in a comments thread about an article that does not contain the information which you were discussing. Obviously you have more information about the case, I think linking to that information would have been helpful.

I agree that the claims of violence have nothing to do with the situation, but that's not the same as saying that he was responsible.

Do you have a link which provides more information about the father's actions?

Or you could look it up like I did when I realized that this version of the story was extremely biased and unreliable instead of demanding to be spoon fed and pretending that you can't imagine why this kind of reporting is totally unacceptable. That would work too.

I'm speaking of the overall attitude misters hold rather than this specific case. The word "alleged" is thrown around a lot here even when discussing convicted men. Misters even protested the omission of the word alleged when discussing the Steubenville rapists post conviction, even though their guilt had been established by themselves on social media.

My point is that the undercurrents of misogyny in this movement mean men get the word alleged regardless of guilt, and women get labelled guilty regardless of innocence. If MRAs actually gave a shit about the rights of the accused instead of solidarity with predatory men, they would be more consistent their presumption of innocence.

The stuebenbille rapists bragged about it on social media during and after. There were still cries to acquit and demands to use the word alleged. I'm asking why alleged appears to be a gendered title in this movement.

"Misters" is the terminology used in anti-MRA subreddits. Basically, it's used to refer to the people from /r/MensRights by abbreviating the subreddit name (MR), pronouncing it as the title you would give a man (Mister), and then pluralizing it (hence "Misters").

It's a give-away that they're not here with an open mind. They already believe we're all scumbags thus they're desperately and illogically attempting to find non-existant double standards.